Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the Challenges of Algorithm Accountability
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01399v1
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:01:20 GMT
- Title: Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the Challenges of Algorithm Accountability
- Authors: Lucas Wright, Roxana Mike Muenster, Briana Vecchione, Tianyao Qu, Pika, Cai, COMM/INFO 2450 Student Investigators, Jacob Metcalf, J. Nathan Matias,
- Abstract summary: In July 2023, New York City became the first jurisdiction globally to mandate bias audits for commercial algorithmic systems.
LL 144 requires AEDTs to be independently audited annually for race and gender bias.
In this study, 155 student investigators recorded 391 employers' compliance with LL 144 and the user experience for prospective job applicants.
- Score: 0.7684035229968342
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: In July 2023, New York City became the first jurisdiction globally to mandate bias audits for commercial algorithmic systems, specifically for automated employment decisions systems (AEDTs) used in hiring and promotion. Local Law 144 (LL 144) requires AEDTs to be independently audited annually for race and gender bias, and the audit report must be publicly posted. Additionally, employers are obligated to post a transparency notice with the job listing. In this study, 155 student investigators recorded 391 employers' compliance with LL 144 and the user experience for prospective job applicants. Among these employers, 18 posted audit reports and 13 posted transparency notices. These rates could potentially be explained by a significant limitation in the accountability mechanisms enacted by LL 144. Since the law grants employers substantial discretion over whether their system is in scope of the law, a null result cannot be said to indicate non-compliance, a condition we call ``null compliance." Employer discretion may also explain our finding that nearly all audits reported an impact factor over 0.8, a rule of thumb often used in employment discrimination cases. We also find that the benefit of LL 144 to ordinary job seekers is limited due to shortcomings in accessibility and usability. Our findings offer important lessons for policy-makers as they consider regulating algorithmic systems, particularly the degree of discretion to grant to regulated parties and the limitations of relying on transparency and end-user accountability.
Related papers
- Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews [51.453135368388686]
We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM)
Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-11T21:51:39Z) - Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime [0.4580134784455941]
Local Law 144 (LL 144) mandates NYC-based employers using automated employment decision-making tools (AEDTs) in hiring to undergo annual bias audits conducted by an independent auditor.
This paper examines lessons from LL 144 for other national algorithm auditing attempts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-12T22:37:15Z) - The Decisive Power of Indecision: Low-Variance Risk-Limiting Audits and Election Contestation via Marginal Mark Recording [51.82772358241505]
Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are techniques for verifying the outcomes of large elections.
We define new families of audits that improve efficiency and offer advances in statistical power.
New audits are enabled by revisiting the standard notion of a cast-vote record so that it can declare multiple possible mark interpretations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-09T16:23:54Z) - A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems [2.2342503377379725]
We propose the criterion audit as an operationalizable compliance and assurance external audit framework.
We argue that AI audits should similarly provide assurance to their stakeholders about AI organizations' ability to govern their algorithms in ways that harms and uphold human values.
We conclude by offering a critical discussion on the benefits, inherent limitations, and implementation challenges of applying practices of the more mature financial auditing industry to AI auditing.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-26T14:38:54Z) - Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the
algorithmic auditing ecosystem [0.971392598996499]
We provide the first comprehensive field scan of the AI audit ecosystem.
We identify emerging best practices as well as methods and tools that are becoming commonplace.
We outline policy recommendations to improve the quality and impact of these audits.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-04T01:40:03Z) - Incentive-Theoretic Bayesian Inference for Collaborative Science [59.15962177829337]
We study hypothesis testing when there is an agent with a private prior about an unknown parameter.
We show how the principal can conduct statistical inference that leverages the information that is revealed by an agent's strategic behavior.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-07T17:59:01Z) - Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable.
In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision.
We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z) - Local Law 144: A Critical Analysis of Regression Metrics [0.0]
In November 2021, the New York City Council passed a legislation that mandates bias audits of automated employment decision tools.
From 15th April 2023, companies that use automated tools for hiring or promoting employees are required to have these systems audited.
We argue that both metrics fail to capture distributional differences over the whole domain, and therefore cannot reliably detect bias.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-08T15:21:14Z) - Having your Privacy Cake and Eating it Too: Platform-supported Auditing
of Social Media Algorithms for Public Interest [70.02478301291264]
Social media platforms curate access to information and opportunities, and so play a critical role in shaping public discourse.
Prior studies have used black-box methods to show that these algorithms can lead to biased or discriminatory outcomes.
We propose a new method for platform-supported auditing that can meet the goals of the proposed legislation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-18T17:32:35Z) - Algorithmic Fairness and Vertical Equity: Income Fairness with IRS Tax
Audit Models [73.24381010980606]
This study examines issues of algorithmic fairness in the context of systems that inform tax audit selection by the IRS.
We show how the use of more flexible machine learning methods for selecting audits may affect vertical equity.
Our results have implications for the design of algorithmic tools across the public sector.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-20T16:27:06Z) - Towards Accountability in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Public
Administrations [0.0]
We argue that the phenomena of distributed responsibility, induced acceptance, and acceptance through ignorance constitute instances of imperfect delegation when tasks are delegated to computationally-driven systems.
We hold that both direct public accountability via public transparency and indirect public accountability via transparency to auditors in public organizations can be both instrumentally ethically valuable and required as a matter of deontology from the principle of democratic self-government.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-04T11:50:04Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.